I am trying to figure out whether 3D movies actually take up more space on a Blu-Ray disc or if it's basically the same amount of space that has simply been split up between 2 different files. So, I found a Blu-Ray movie I had ripped to my hard drive awhile back, found the corresponding 3D .m2ts file(the one that is loosely anywhere from 30%-50% of the size of the largest stream file) in the /bdmv/stream folder and renamed it so that it couldn't be found by it's original name when attempting to play the movie back on my PC. Well, the movie still played without any problems. Which leads me to the conclusion that ripping a 3D Movie to hard disk as a 2D only movie can save lots of hard disk space because the smaller corresponding .m2ts file is not mandatory to watch the movie in 2D. So, for instance, I have the option of burning a 3d movie to a single-layer Blu-Ray disc in 3D at the expense of a higher compression ratio for the movie or I can rip the 3D movie as a 2D only movie to my hard disk, effectively decreasing the compression ratio and at the same time substantially increasing the quality of the picture.
So my question is simply whether or not I have an accurate assessment of the pros and cons of ripping/burning a 3D movie as a 2d movie versus burning it as a 3D movie. There is a substantially larger disc space requirement(not a trivially larger requirement, i.e., housekeeping or metadata) for burning a 3D movie as a 3D movie yes? It's not just a spitting of the original movie between two different streams. It's literally additional 3d movie data?
This is kind of a separate question but related to 3D. I am guessing the reason for the extreme variation, from 3D movie to 3D movie, in the size of the smaller corresponding 3D .m2ts file on 3D movies depends on how many actual scenes are shot in 3D(or how much actual movie time is shot in 3D). In other words, I am guessing that not every single movie scene in a 3D movie has to be shot in 3D so that the size of the corresponding 3D .m2ts file is somewhat indicative of how many scenes of the movie(or how much overall scene time) were shot in 3D. Is my assumption correct? Of course since you do have to wear 3D glasses for every scene in the movie I may be wrong here.
Hope my question is understandable enough. Thanks for reading.
So my question is simply whether or not I have an accurate assessment of the pros and cons of ripping/burning a 3D movie as a 2d movie versus burning it as a 3D movie. There is a substantially larger disc space requirement(not a trivially larger requirement, i.e., housekeeping or metadata) for burning a 3D movie as a 3D movie yes? It's not just a spitting of the original movie between two different streams. It's literally additional 3d movie data?
This is kind of a separate question but related to 3D. I am guessing the reason for the extreme variation, from 3D movie to 3D movie, in the size of the smaller corresponding 3D .m2ts file on 3D movies depends on how many actual scenes are shot in 3D(or how much actual movie time is shot in 3D). In other words, I am guessing that not every single movie scene in a 3D movie has to be shot in 3D so that the size of the corresponding 3D .m2ts file is somewhat indicative of how many scenes of the movie(or how much overall scene time) were shot in 3D. Is my assumption correct? Of course since you do have to wear 3D glasses for every scene in the movie I may be wrong here.
Hope my question is understandable enough. Thanks for reading.
Comment